4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015

The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
Annual Review, 2015
4th Energy Wave, 2015

4th
Energy Wave, Fuel Cell Annual Review, 2015
1 | P a g e
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
2. 2014 – The Highlights and Lowlights.................................................................................... 4
Fuel Cell Annual Review Definitions............................................................................................. 6
............................................................................................ 7
3. The Changing Landscape of Drivers...................................................................................... 8
3.1 Water................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 NOx, PM and Carbon Emissions........................................................................................ 10
............................................................................................................ 15
4. Geographical Overview ......................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Europe............................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 North America................................................................................................................. 21
California – AB 2514 .......................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Asia Pacific....................................................................................................................... 25
China................................................................................................................................. 25
Japan................................................................................................................................. 26
...................................................................................... 28
5. The 2014 Fuel Cell Sector in Numbers.................................................................................... 29
5.1 Shipments and MWs........................................................................................................ 29
5.2 Electrolyte Mix ................................................................................................................ 35
5.3 Platinum.......................................................................................................................... 36
5.4 Costs ............................................................................................................................... 39
....................................................................................................................... 41
................................................................................................................... 41
.......................................................................................................................................... 41
6.1 Special Focus on the Remote Power Market ....................................................................... 42
6.2 Special Focus on Jobs........................................................................................................... 46
Comparison with Cleantech Jobs ........................................................................................... 48
2014 Jobs Summary: ............................................................................................................. 49
7. Data Tables ........................................................................................................................... 50
8. Company Financial performance and Profiles........................................................................ 52
8.1 Company Financial Performance...................................................................................... 52
8.2 Company Profiles............................................................................................................. 56
Notes Pages .............................................................................................................................. 64
Notes Pages .............................................................................................................................. 65

4th
2 | P a g e
Notes Pages...............................................................................................................................66
Notes Pages...............................................................................................................................67
ABOUT 4TH ENERGY WAVE and LEGAL DISCLAIMER ..................................................................68

4th
3 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION
This second edition of the 4th
Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review takes an analytical look
at the development of both industries during 2014.
This was a year of many highlights and lowlights with the focused lenses of international interest returning
en masse to both industries.
For the fuel cell industry the many, many, many press releases from the automotive sector clouded the
growth picture as, once again, many pundits assumed growth from this sector would be steep and
achievable in the short term. This was to no little extent supported by many “analysis” pieces (in the
loosest sense of the word), which show deployment in the millions by 2025. Many of these documents are
clearly politically motivated, as they attempt to gain some sort of special technology status for fuel cells. If
understood as such these pieces are harmless, but if taken out of context can be once again seen to be
over blowing the short term potential of the industry – a very risky game.
Hydrogen gained the spotlight as interest in the energy storage market lurched forward again. Using
electrolytically produced hydrogen to store excess energy is a current darling concept for many
technology developers. This is understandable in many respects as, once the hydrogen is produced, there
is no shortage of markets for it if it can be economically collected and transported to the point of need.
This is a question which some of the developers are keen to pass off as “not my problem”. The thorny
issue of hydrogen distribution, from highly dispersed sources of production, is clearly at the top of the tree
in terms of pressing challenges, and costs are not easy to reduce.
Overall though, both the fuel cell and hydrogen industries are set for increasing gains due to renewed
interest in a basket of drivers: control of emissions (both carbon and regulated); energy efficiency; and
water use.
New for the 2015 Review are the topics of platinum and jobs. To many, platinum remains the thorn in the
side of fuel cell and electrolyser economics. On the one hand, if only (it is claimed) platinum could be
removed, then all the cost problems with fuel cells would evaporate like morning mist. On the other hand,
platinum miners are actively looking at the fuel cell sector to soak up an increasing share of platinum
production. This creates an interesting dynamic, with the two sides seeming to be in active opposition.
Naturally the reality is more complex, with each side needing the other.
As last year, there are two versions of this report. This free version covers developments in 2014 and a
short range forecast to the end of 2015. The full version of the report covers the period out to 2025 with
forecasts of fuel cell units shipped, MWs shipped, revenue, overall annual platinum demand, and kilos of
hydrogen produced. The latter report can be ordered from Kerry-Ann@4thenergywave.com, at a price of
£1,000 / USD$1,600 / €1,500. The full edition includes an Excel spreadsheet of (the majority of) the data
from the report, a chart book of all charts, and an hour’s time with chief analyst Kerry-Ann.
Finally, as always, since the data has been gathered from primary interviewing of producers and
manufacturers, the 4th
Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review contains the only non-
estimated global dataset in the world. The information has been provided to 4th
on a highly confidential
basis and is not broken out by company for that reason.

4th
4 | P a g e
2. 2014 – THE HIGHLIGHTS AND LOWLIGHTS
The fuel cell, and non-captive, markets for hydrogen continue to grow at a steady pace. While it would be
very wrong to call these boom years, they are years of double digit growth in most application areas and
the sectors continue to attract investment, though at a much lower rate than the renewable energy, or
general cleantech, markets. More than ever, though, different regions are taking different approaches to
development. Whether that is through the types of funding/subsidy available, the role of government,
focus on what type of value-add, or the eternal (and pointless) debate over batteries versus fuel cell
technology, it means that the question, “who’s leading?”, or any other such interrogation, is even more
futile than ever.
The map below shows the key differences in direction by country and clearly highlights a growing
diversity. Japan, and to a lesser extent South Korea, are the two countries operating what can be termed a
“technology-forcing” policy. The EU is still stuck in demonstration mode and the US remains somewhat
balkanised by State or sub-region. China remains on the fringes, while South Africa has started to make a
number of bold moves which could well see it leapfrog into the top 5 nations, in terms of installed
capacity, in the short to medium term.
MAP 2.1: OVERVIEW OF DIRECTION OF KEY DEVELOPER AND ADOPTER NATIONS
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Outside of government policy, 2014 saw private investment in fuel cells and hydrogen, including IPOs, top
$1 billion. Though 2014 saw no mega deals, and certainly no deals on the scale of other cleantech sectors,
it did see companies securing growth equity in each quarter. While there is still a long way to go before it
can be said that fuel cells and hydrogen are openly seen as attractive investment opportunities, the
sectors are no longer at the same level of demonisation that they were only 5 years ago.
In terms of deployments, at the end of 2014 the fuel cell sector exceeded 1 GW cumulatively installed
since 1995. It is a well understood phenomenon of new technologies and products that the first million
sold, or in this case the first GW shipped, can often take close to a decade, or longer, and then the next
GW, or million, only a relatively short period of time. For reference, the 4th
Energy Wave fuel cell
deployment model has this 1 GW per year milestone being achieved in the 2016 / 2017 timeframe - some

4th
5 | P a g e
2 to 3 years after the first 1 GW cumulatively installed. This does make deployment rates slower than, for
example, the Prius, or the iPhone.

4th
6 | P a g e
FUEL CELL ANNUAL REVIEW DEFINITIONS
The Annual Review covers all markets for stationary, portable and transport fuel cells. It does not cover
the fuel cell toy market.
The stationary sector is split out into:
Prime Power
Backup Power (including indoor and outdoor power for telecoms)
Residential CHP
Other CHP
Remote Monitoring and Sensing
The transport sector covers:
Cars
Buses
Forklifts
Others (APU, Marine, Aerospace, etc.)
The portable sector is split into:
Skid Mounted Systems
Systems for Personal Electronics
What is not covered in this report is the civilian / military split.
The report divides the world into 4 regions:
Europe – For this report, Europe covers the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Russia.
Unless otherwise clearly stated references in the document to Europe are for the entire continent,
and only when tagged as such do they refer to the European Union (EU)
North America - For this document, this refers to Canada and the US only
Asia Pacific – Refers to the Asian subcontinent and includes India
Rest of the world – Everywhere else
As the fuel cell market expands and diversifies, these groupings will evolve and any changes will be clearly
highlighted in future report updates.

4th
7 | P a g e

4th
8 | P a g e
3. THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF DRIVERS
In last year’s Review we stated that “there appears to be something of a perfect storm on the horizon. This
changing demand in the market is global, and very different from the minimal, and localised, market pull
that has been seen to date. This new dynamic is centred around three drivers. Namely:
1. Resilience;
2. Futureproofing; and
3. Shifting Models of Adoption.”
Now, in this 2015 edition, we can supplement these drivers with water and emissions. Or, to be more
specific, the drive to use a lot less water in the energy network, and to emit far fewer emissions.
3.1 WATER
The energy sector consumes 15% of the world’s total water withdrawals1
. Within the sector, coal and
nuclear are the most thirsty. According to Mielke et al, nuclear power has the highest water consumption
of the thermoelectric technologies, and in the US, thermoelectric power plant cooling accounts for
between 3% and 4% of all US water consumption.
FIGURE 3.1: IEA METRICS OF WATER CONSUMPTION FROM THE ENERGY SECTOR
Source: IEA, 2012
If we look at the IEA’s three core energy scenarios of Current Policies, New Policies and 450 Scenario we
see, as well as consumption growing, that extraction of water for use in the energy industry is set to
significantly expand, with the largest growth expected in Latin America.
1
IEA, "Water for Energy: Is Energy Becoming a Thirstier Resource", 2012

4th
9 | P a g e
FIGURE 3.2 IEA SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE WATER NEEDS FROM THE ENERGY SECTOR
Source: IEA, 2012
Why this is important should be clear to anyone who reads the news. In many regions of the world
drought conditions are the new norm, with more extended and severe droughts predicted under the
increasing impacts of climate change.
Fuel cells fit into this picture in regard to water consumption. Most fuel cells operate in water balance
mode, with no consumption or discharge of water in normal operation. So the overall water footprint for
using fuel cells to produce energy only relates to the water consumed from the fuel extraction, or fuel
creation, process.
If we once again use the data from Mielke et al we can see that biomass, in terms of water consumption,
is the worst of the common inputs into the hydrogen production process, and natural gas is second worst.
FIGURE 3.3: WATER CONSUMPTION OF EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF FUELS
Source: Mielke, E., Anadon, L.D., Narayanamurti, V.2
2
2010, "Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion", Energy
Technology Innovation Policy Research Group, Harvard Kennedy School. Download from:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ETIP-DP-2010-15-final-4.pdf

4th
10 | P a g e
However, one issue that needs to be unpacked a lot more and its implications understood is water
consumption for the production of green hydrogen.
In terms of electrolytically produced hydrogen, according to one source the rule of thumb is that for every
cubic metre of H2 produced, 1 litre of water3
is consumed; or, every kg of H2 produced consumes 11 litres
of water.
For reference, the volume of water required to produce petrol / gasoline is 2.8 – 6.6 litres of water per
litre of fuel.
On the surface therefore it looks like moving to a green hydrogen based economy could actually
exacerbate the issue of water usage. In reality though, with the predicted increases in energy efficiency in
terms of miles per gallon equivalent (mpge) of a fuel cell car over a current diesel car, then we need to get
to a tipping point where the fuel economy means less hydrogen is needed to be produced, and therefore
less water is consumed.
Due to this being a clear issue of concern, two suggested policy directions for this are:
1. Set aside R&D funding for increased efficiency, and therefore decreased water use, in PEM
electrolysers;
2. Set mpge targets for future fuel cell vehicles. Gen 2 of the fuel cell vehicle is already locked in for
the 2020 time period, so this would need to be a long term, post-2025 target, which would
dovetail well with the projected mass market deployment phase of fuel cell vehicles.
In general though, as water becomes an increasingly hot topic the water consumption to produce
hydrogen from renewables will need much closer examination.
3.2 NOX, PM AND CARBON EMISSIONS
Until recently emissions were well understood to be an issue, at government level at least, but were not
considered to be of significant enough concern to be a real driver for change.
However, in Europe, China and California the emissions debate has increased significantly in strength and
now has become one of the strongest drivers for change in the current energy and transport landscapes.
In Europe, cities have very clear emissions targets set by the European Union4
, outlined in table 3.1 below.
TABLE 3.1: EU AIR QUALITY STANDARD
Pollutant Concentration Averaging
period
Legal nature Permitted
exceedances each
year
Fine particles
(PM2.5)
25 µg/m3 1 year Target value entered into
force 1.1.2010
Limit value enters into force
1.1.2015
n/a
Sulphur dioxide
(SO2)
350 µg/m3 1 hour Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005
24
125 µg/m3 24 hours Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005
3
3
Source: confidential
4
Directive 2008/50/EC

4th
11 | P a g e
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
200 µg/m3 1 hour Limit value entered into force
1.1.2010
18
40 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force
1.1.2010
n/a
PM10 50 µg/m3 24 hours Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005
35
40 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005
n/a
Lead (Pb) 0.5 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005 (or 1.1.2010 in the
immediate vicinity of specific,
notified industrial sources;
and a 1.0 µg/m3 limit value
applied from 1.1.2005 to
31.12.2009)
n/a
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
10 mg/m3 Maximum
daily 8 hour
mean
Limit value entered into force
1.1.2005
n/a
Benzene 5 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force
1.1.2010
n/a
Ozone 120 µg/m3 Maximum
daily 8 hour
mean
Target value entered into
force 1.1.2010
25 days averaged over
3 years
Arsenic (As) 6 ng/m3 1 year Target value entered into
force 31.12.2012
n/a
Cadmium (Cd) 5 ng/m3 1 year Target value entered into
force 31.12.2012
n/a
Nickel (Ni) 20 ng/m3 1 year Target value entered into
force 31.12.2012
n/a
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
1 ng/m3
(expressed
as concentration
of
benzo(a)pyrene)
1 year Target value entered into
force 31.12.2012
n/a
Source: Europa.eu
Within this range of emissions the NO2 levels are causing concern. This is graphically highlighted in a
Transport for London map, shown below. This map shows the annual NO2 levels along London’s road
artery network. Any area marked in yellow or red is above the specified objective level.

4th
12 | P a g e
MAP 3.1: LONDON NOX ANNUAL POLLUTION LEVEL
London is not the only city to fail to meet emissions levels, but in Europe is one of several key cities which
are now being accused of the “demonisation of diesel”. For example, a number of councils within London
are starting to levy charges on diesel cars either when driving or parking in them. At the moment this is at
a somewhat punitive level which could, at best, push some of the older diesels off the road. The mayor of
Paris has even called for diesels to be banned from the city’s streets by 2020. Whether this is possible or
not is open to debate, but it clearly shows the level of interest in the argument.
CHART 3.1 EUROPEAN EURO VEHICLE NOX STANDARDS, DIESEL AND PETROL CARS
Source: European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)

4th
13 | P a g e
The issue could be said to be not about new diesel cars, which under Euro 6 will only be allowed to emit
80 mg/km by September of 2015, but the continued use of older vehicles. In reality, real world driving
cycles, as opposed to the procedures currently used to check conformance with emissions limits, are
showing vehicles emitting NOx at well above the legal limits5
. These are increasingly regarded by a
number of policy makers as the highest contributors to these NOx corridors.
Diesel cars still make up close to 50% of all new vehicles sold in Europe, but the key expansion phase is
over.
CHART 3.2 DIESEL AS % OF SALES OF NEW CARS IN SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: 1990 -
2014
Source: ACEA, 2014
As an aside, two points of interest in this chart are:
1. The speed at which the vehicle fleet can be changed with strong government policy. Norway, for
example, went from 2.6% diesel in 1990 to 74.9% in 2010. The key reason for the rapid expansion of
diesel in Norway was identified as the Norwegian government’s restructuring of vehicle taxation in
2007, with a focus on reducing CO2 - something which diesel cars had been shown to do. When this
was coupled with a low diesel fuel taxation it triggered a growth in sales of diesels.
2. The speed of the dip down in Norway. In around 2010 the government took on board the findings of a
report which showed the link between diesel and NOx. While it rejected an outright ban on diesel cars
in the country’s major cities, it put in place a levy and a raft of pro-EV subsidies, to the point where
sales of EVs in Norway now outstrip most other countries in the world. For reference, in 2014 Norway
sold over 20,000 EVs, including over 4,700 Nissan Leafs and 4,000 Teslas.
5
http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/05/27/latest-euro-6-diesel-car-emissions-still-above-limit/

4th
14 | P a g e
Both of these should make good case studies for the current debate about overhauling the transport fleet
towards a more electric based drivetrain.
The key message is that as noxious emissions sprint up the political agenda, and as we inch closer to a
global agreement on capping carbon emissions, which is likely during COP21, then the transport and
energy infrastructures will come under increasing pressure to reform their emissions profiles - and there is
only so much that can be done with end of pipe solutions for the current technology.

4th
15 | P a g e

4th
16 | P a g e
4. GEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW
The number of countries with policy that is directly, or indirectly, pro fuel cells or hydrogen has increased
in 2014.
While energy storage continues to be the darling market in terms of investment and current industry
focus, government action is limited to a handful of countries.
Leadership remains with the power bloc of Japan, South Korea, the USA and Germany, with growth in fuel
cell units remaining strongest in Japan and South Korea.
Other countries, including South Africa and Chile, remain damned with potential, although South Africa, in
2015, is starting to put some concrete strategies into place rather than just spouting rhetoric.
Within North America, California is still playing the role of environmental rabble rouser, and New York
State is starting to undertake some major policy shifts which could well see it become a leader in
stationary fuel cell adoption in the short to medium term.
MAP 4.1: COUNTRIES WITH DIRECT OR INDIRECT PRO FUEL CELL POLICY, 2014
Source: 4th Energy Wave, 2015
If we look at the data shown in Charts 4.1 and 4.2, we can see the overall impact of Asia on the industry.
Note these charts represent region of manufacture, not region of adoption.
In 2014 Asia Pacific represents over 60% of all units shipped, and in 2015 this is forecast to expand to over
75%. This uptick in Asian manufacturing is based on the clear policy direction in Japan and South Korea.

4th
17 | P a g e
CHART 4.1 GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY REGION OF MANUFACTURE, 2013
– 2O15 (F)
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
CHART 4.1 GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY REGION OF MANUFACTURE, 2009
2O15 (F)
4.1 EUROPE

4th
18 | P a g e
Europe is currently the location of some 33% of the companies working in the global fuel cell supply chain.
It is no surprise to learn that Germany has the majority of these, at 11% of the world total, but it is a
surprise that the UK, which is well down the rankings in terms of deployment, hosts an impressive 8% of
all companies working in the global fuel cell supply chain.
CHART 4.3 SHARE OF COMPANIES IN THE FUEL CELL INDUSTRY IN EUROPE, FROM BOP TO
SYSTEM DEVELOPERS; 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
At European Union level there continues to be a focus on demonstration, rather than deployment.
Horizon 2020 is the European Union’s flagship Research and Innovation programme, running for 7 years
(2014 –2020), with a staggering budget of €80 billion (US$110 billion). The programme funds joint
research and demonstration in key thematic areas.
Within Horizon 2020, fuel cell and hydrogen RD&D falls under the Energy and the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
Joint Undertaking (FCH JU).

4th
19 | P a g e
With matched industry funding, the pot of cash available for fuel cell and hydrogen calls under Horizon
2020 will be €1.3 billion (US$1.8 billion).
2014 saw a range of policy documents from the EU that are directly or indirectly relevant to this report,
with the key one being the much anticipated 2030 targets. The 2030 framework for climate and energy
policies sets out a raft of targets that the Commission regards as both achievable and necessary to move
Europe towards a low or zero carbon, healthy and innovative economy.
The headline figures from the new 2030 energy plan for Europe are:
A binding greenhouse gas reduction target of at least 40 per cent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, an
indicative target to achieve 27 per cent in energy savings, and a binding target to source at least 27 per
cent of EU energy consumption from renewable sources over the same period.
For reference, the chart below shows the current uptake of renewable energy in the EU. According to data
from a recent report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), within the EU28 in 2012 energy from
renewable sources accounted for 14.1% of gross final energy consumption, representing over two-thirds
of the EU’s 20% renewable energy target for 2020. Note that this figure includes the use of biomass.
CHART 4.4 EUROPEAN UNION RENEWABLE ENERGY PERCENTAGE CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR,
2005 - 2015
Source: EEA data, 2013
Within this, some interesting data points are:
 Wind accounted for 26% of the renewable electricity in 2012, compared to 14% in 2005;
 Solar energy accounted for 9% of the renewable electricity in 2012, compared to 0% in 2005;
 Solid biofuels accounted for 10% of the renewable electricity in 2012, compared to 9% in 2005.
Interestingly, in 2012 renewable energy for heating and cooling accounted for 15.6% of total final energy
consumption for heating and cooling in the EU28, compared to 10.3% in 2005 and 14.2% in 2010.
The reason the 2030 Framework is such a huge policy driver for the uptake of fuel cells and hydrogen is
that both technologies offer low carbon emissions (the extent of the reduction depending on the fuel),

4th
20 | P a g e
and increased energy efficiency. Along with renewable energy, the EU is very keen on promoting the
uptake and adoption of fuel cells and hydrogen, and the carbon value of these technologies is now central
in their attractiveness.
Potential Impacts:
 Expect to see an increase in attention paid to the carbon reduction potential of using fuel cells and an
increased focus on the generation and use of “green” renewable hydrogen;
 Expect to see a renewed focus on renewable heat, both for use in buildings and for reducing heat
island effects from cities;
 Expect to see a need for better understanding of the further efficiency gains of using fuel cells as a
power option, over and above the current suite of technologies;
 Expect to see a more formal approach to setting emissions targets for, and recording of emissions
from, fuel cells.

4th
21 | P a g e
4.2 NORTH AMERICA
Outside of the Japanese and South Korean governments the American government continues to play the
strongest role in funding fuel cell and hydrogen R&D. Coupled with the much more focused approach in
the US to spinning out companies from successful university based R&D, it is no surprise that the US
individually has the largest percentage of fuel cell companies in the world dataset.
CHART 4.5: SHARE OF COMPANIES IN THE FUEL CELL INDUSTRY IN NORTH AMERICA, FROM
BOP TO SYSTEM DEVELOPERS; 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
In the U.S. in terms of policy, the key activity continues to be at State level, particularly in California (see
below). At Federal level both the Loan Guarantee Programme and the Modified Accelerated Cost-
Recovery System (MACRS) have ended. Fiscal support for fuel cells remains, at Federal level at least,
somewhat lower without these programmes. However, in terms of policy objectives the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 was boosted by a Presidential Memorandum on December 5, 2013, and again by an Executive

4th
22 | P a g e
Order on March 19, 2015. These both updated and expanded the targets to reduce energy use in existing
and new federal buildings. According to the wording of the latter text,
"This order states that, where life-cycle cost-effective, the following percentages of the total amount of
electric energy consumed by each agency during any fiscal year shall come from renewable energy:
 10% in fiscal years 2016 and 2017
 30% in fiscal year 2025 and thereafter
The order also states that, where life-cycle cost-effective, the following percentages of the total combined
amount of electric and thermal energy consumed by each agency during any fiscal year shall come from
renewable electric energy and alternative energy:
 25% in fiscal year 2025 and thereafter"
Renewable electrical energy technologies are defined as solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including
tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, geothermal heat pumps, microturbines, municipal solid
waste, and new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new
capacity at an existing hydroelectric project. Alternative energy technologies are defined as biomass, solar
thermal, geothermal, waste heat, combined heat and power, small modular nuclear reactor technologies,
fuel cell energy systems, and energy generation that includes verified capture and storage of carbon
dioxide emissions associated with that generation.
Especially relevant for fuel cells is that the actual wording of the text is for life cycle cost, and not capital
cost. In the short term though, without though some form of fiscal subsidy to boost deployment, fuel cells
are unlikely to be able to capitalise on this Act as much as some other technologies.
CALIFORNIA – AB 2514
California is always a key area for any fuel cell and hydrogen activity. For the energy storage sector there is
much focus on California at the minute due to a piece of legislation titled AB 2514.
AB 2514 was passed in September 2010. The text of the document reads: “This bill would require the
CPUC6
, by March 1, 2012, to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for each load-
serving entity to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems and, by October 1, 2013, to
adopt an energy storage system procurement target, if determined to be appropriate, to be achieved by
each load-serving entity by December 31, 2015, and a 2nd target to be achieved by December 31, 2020.”
The key words here are “…to adopt an energy storage system procurement target, if determined to be
appropriate.” In other words, if a public utility deems energy storage is not to be cost effective, then it
does not have to set an adoption target. The public utility is required to re-evaluate this stance at least
every 3 years.
6
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission

4th
23 | P a g e
With an indicative State-wide target of 1.3 GWs of energy storage by 2022 being the darling number that
is increasingly being mentioned, it is worth examining which utilities in California have committed to
procure energy storage and by how much.
Of the 29 public utilities in California, fewer than 5 have set actual procurement targets so far, and some
of these are reworkings of current installed energy storage systems.
For the three investor owned utilities (IOUs), namely, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric, it is something of a different picture. A decision was taken
to set a target of 1,325 megawatts (MW) of energy storage to be procured by 2020, with installations
required no later than the end of 2024.
The IOU procurement targets are outlined in the table below.
TABLE 4.1: PROPOSED IOU ENERGY STORAGE PROCUREMENT TARGETS, MWS
2014 2016 2018 2020 Total
Southern California Edison
Transmission 50 65 85 110 310
Distribution 30 40 50 65 185
Customer 10 15 25 35 85
Subtotal SCE 90 120 160 210 580
Pacific Gas and Electric
Customer 10 15 25 35 85
Subtotal
PG&E
90 120 160 210 580
San Diego Gas and Electric
Customer 3 5 8 14 30
Subtotal
SDG&E
20 30 45 70 165
TOTAL All 3
Utilities
200 270 365 490 1,325
Whilst this, at first glance, appears a goodly number, especially when compared with the lack of reaction
from the local utilities towards energy storage procurement, it should be highlighted that any of the three
IOUs above has the right to defer up 80% of the required MWs to a later procurement period, if they
decide that the current energy storage economics are not viable.
The first procurement schedule for the IOUs ran to December 1st
, 2014, which is why we have seen a slew
of energy storage project awards in California, and this will be repeated biennially in 2016, 2018 and 2020.
Based on the first results of the 2014 calls, the time taken from the opening of solicitations to the
awarding of projects has been in the region of three months. It would also appear that a significant
proportion of the 200 MWs is being held over, to at least the 2016 call.
So, when this is combined with the extreme reticence of the local utilities to invest in energy storage
projects or technologies, we can say that although there is a growing market place for energy storage in
California, the majority of the MWs are not likely to be actually bought and scheduled until 2018 - 2020.
Bear in mind, though, that by the 2020 timeframe Tesla is forecasting to have installed over 1,000 million
of its Powerwalls globally. At 2kW (base size) each and with a burgeoning rooftop solar market on the

4th
24 | P a g e
West Coast, we could see a significant percentage of these going into California. It is always important to
remember that the energy storage market has many competitor technologies and it is not just about
hydrogen.

4th
25 | P a g e
4.3 ASIA PACIFIC
In Asia Pacific, the three countries of most interest are Japan, South Korea and China. Of the three, China
is the least evolved in terms of its policy but grabs most of the headlines.
CHART 4.6: SHARE OF COMPANIES IN THE FUEL CELL INDUSTRY IN ASIA PACIFIC, FROM BOP
TO SYSTEM DEVELOPERS; 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
CHINA
Of the 21 Chinese companies in the 4th
Energy Wave Fuel Cell Directory an impressive 15 claim to have a
commercial product, which is a much higher strike rate than any other country in the dataset. 19 of these
companies are working on PEM fuel cells, which is understandable considering the focus in the country to
date on transport.

4th
26 | P a g e
In 2014 three potential adoption markets in China were clarified - cars, buses and backup power for
cellphone transmission sites. In terms of government policy the only clear direction was a limited fiscal
incentive for the use of either battery electric or fuel cell vehicles. With the current (2015) development of
the next 5 year plan, and China’s submission to the Conference of the Parties (COP) 21 to reduce carbon
emissions by 2030, it is being assumed that the push in the next plan will be for more decarbonisation
through electrification.
JAPAN
Japan, as always, is at the global forefront of policy favouring fuel cells and hydrogen.
The key highlight in 2014 was the Japanese government releasing its updated fuel cell and hydrogen
roadmap. The document, now known as the “Promotion Project for Hydrogen Society Using Renewable
Energy” can be summed up in three broad brush steps for long-term market development in Japan.
Phase 1 (2014 >):
 Increase the number of residential fuel cells to 1.4 million in 2020 and 5.3 million in 2030;
 Increase the number of hydrogen refuelling stations to 100 by 2015;
(It should be said that neither of these points are new and are already-known targets)
 Commercialise fuel cell vehicles by 2015 and fuel cell buses by 2016;
 Have a commercial SOFC for industrial use by 2017.
Phase 2 (2025 >):
 Be able to purchase commodity hydrogen from abroad, at ¥30/m3
(US$0.29/m3
)7
.
(This target is very unambitious as the 2015 U.S. DOE target is $3.10/kg for central hydrogen plants and
$3.70/kg distributed plants)
 Expand the domestic hydrogen network;
 Manufacture, transport and store hydrogen in foreign countries.
Phase 3 (2040 >)
 The establishment of a full scale, CO2 free, hydrogen supply system;
 Development of a national zero carbon hydrogen network and the securing of overseas supply of zero
carbon hydrogen.
As well as the roadmap, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that the government would support the
introduction of fuel cell vehicles with a 2 million Yen ($20,000) subsidy. The level of surprise at this
announcement has been confusing, as this is very clearly the Japanese modus operandi - pick a
technology, develop a local industrial base and help to subsidise its initial deployment. Japan has already
very heavily and successfully subsidised the market introduction of residential fuel cells, and it is highly
likely that the fuel cell vehicle subsidy will see a similar sliding scale approach.
Apart from its clear success in encouraging local deployment, cost reduction and refinement of the
product, the impact of this long term support has been to allow Japanese companies to break out of the
7
This equates to approximately US$3.22/kg

4th
27 | P a g e
home market and start to develop overseas. Two examples are Panasonic, with a residential fuel cell
development facility in Cardiff, Wales, and Toshiba Fuel Cell Power Systems Corporation signing an
exclusive co-development and marketing agreement for fuel cell micro-CHP heating systems for European
homes.
On top of the national subsidy, a number of the local prefectures now provide additional fiscal support.
One example of this is Aichi prefecture which provides a further 1 million Yen ($10,000) for local
purchases. As Toyota is based in Aichi prefecture, this will have come as welcome news. With the ticket
price of a Toyota fuel cell vehicle being published at 7 million Yen (US$70,000), the total subsidies take the
price down to a much more affordable 4 million Yen (US$40,000).
This financial subsidy complements the 2013 announcement by the Japanese government that it would
support the development and deployment of 100 hydrogen refuelling stations in 4 major urban areas by
2015. It is likely that these 4 urban areas will be Tokyo, Nagoya, Kyoto and Hiroshima. The budget for
these deployments is US$460 million, which is anticipated to cover around 50% of the installation costs. Of
the 100 stations, JX Energy is slated to deploy 40, with Toho Gas and Iwatani Corp a further 20 stations
each.
To round off the support for fuel cells from the Japanese government was the statement, on 25th July
2014, that all ministries and other offices are to introduce fuel cell cars as official vehicles.
There will likely be a range of impacts coming out of the Japanese support for fuel cell vehicles. These are
forecast to include:
 The uptake of fuel cell vehicles in Japan will be higher than in any other country in the world, until at
least the mid-2020s;
 The price of fuel cell vehicles made in Japan will be lower than from other countries by 2020, and will
come down at a quicker rate (unless companies such as Daimler, etc. are sitting on a technical
breakthrough that will also reduce the cost of their vehicles);
 The standards created in Japan for hydrogen are likely to become the de facto standards around the
world;
 The business opportunities for non-Japanese companies will be limited. Although there is no clear
‘buy local’ component in any of the Japanese government policies, Japanese companies very much
prefer to deal with other Japanese companies. For a non-Japanese company to break into this market,
it is suggested that as a first step they get strong backing for a product that the Japanese market
wants, but does not yet have.
Outside of core fiscal support for fuel cells and hydrogen the government has introduced a mandate to
update and change a raft of technical standards. One key example is the Revision of the Technical
Standards for Compressed Hydrogen Filling Stations. Due to the increased use of hydrogen in Japan the
standard addresses a range of safety and technical issues, allowing a much more streamlined approach to
the continued growth of liquid and compressed hydrogen.

4th
28 | P a g e

4th
29 | P a g e
5. THE 2014 FUEL CELL SECTOR IN NUMBERS
For the past 7 years, 4th
Energy Wave’s Principal Analyst has been providing a yearly analytical review of
the fuel cell sector. This is the only continuous analysis that exists based on primary data.
5.1 SHIPMENTS AND MWS
In 2014 the fuel cell industry shipped 104,900 fuel cell systems. This number (which does not include any
units ordered but not shipped, nor any backlog) contributes to a 49% compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) for the period 2009 to 2014. In line with the previous 5 years, in absolute terms the largest growth
in shipments in 2014 took place in the stationary sector, dominated by continued developments in Japan.
Both the transport and portable sectors posted growth, but at a much lower rate than the short term
forecast.
CHART 5.1: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY SYSTEM AND SECTOR, 2009 –
2015 (F)
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Interestingly if, as we forecast, the transport and portable sectors are close to the tipping point between
niche and mainstream applications, then the rate of growth in both of these sectors will outstrip that of
stationary in the short term.
Chart 5.1 vividly demonstrates how far the industry has come in a relatively short period of time. In the 5
year period 2009 to 2014, shipments have increased by some 90,000 units annually and are facing a 51%
jump between 2014 and 2015.
If we look at MWs shipped, 2014 was pegged at 221.8 MWs, an increase of 40 MWs over 2013. When
taking into account the growth in the large stationary fuel cell market, it is not surprising that stationary
fuel cells accounted for an impressive 81% of the total shipped.

4th
30 | P a g e
CHART 5.2 GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY MWS, 2014
When this is broken out by the top 10 performing companies in the fuel cell system sector we can see that
3 companies currently have a very strong position. In fact, the top 10 companies in the world shipped over
90% of all MWs in 2014.
Note that each company in the dataset has its own unique identifier code and so company 1 this year will
be labelled as company 1 next year and the year after, and so on.
CHART 5.3: FUEL CELL MWS SHIPPED BY TOP 10 PERFORMING FUEL CELL COMPANIES, 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015

4th
31 | P a g e
With a basket of companies either coming back to the market, or releasing product for the first time
within the next 5 years, this will be one of the most interesting charts to watch.
If we look at the annual MWs shipped over time we see that the uptick in the 2014 stationary sector was
somewhat lower than had been expected. This has created a significant backlog of expectation which we
are forecasting will primarily be met during 2015.
This backlog was created by a number of company-specific conditions, and there was no general cause.
The only common truism is to say that the industry is growing up, and the growth pains experienced
between 2010 and 2014 are potentially now coming to an end.
CHART 5.4: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY MWS AND SECTOR, 2009 – 2015
(F)

4th
32 | P a g e
CHART 5.5: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY MWS, SECTOR AND CUMULATIVE
ADOPTION, 2009 – 2015 (F)
The transport sector is finally starting to show a growth spurt. With the release of the first production fuel
cell vehicles in 2014, and more forecast to appear in 2015 and 2016, the annual MWs will see step change
increases going forward. One note of caution here is that we are forecasting global annual adoption of
only 66,500 vehicles by 2025. The adoption rate will be tempered by infrastructure issues and by customer
demand not being expected to really take off before the mid 2020s.
CHART 5.6: GLOBAL FUEL CELL VEHICLES, BY REGION OF ADOPTION, 2010 - 2025

4th
33 | P a g e
In terms of being able to meet the increase in overall demand the 2014 manufacturing capacity of the
sector is forecast to be adequate for the next 3 – 4 years. We estimate that the current 1.2 GW of annual
capacity will need to increase to around the 3 GW annual mark by 2018 – 2020. The finance needed to
undertake this is estimated to be in the high millions (not billions) of dollars and as long as there is no
boom and bust cycle, should be met through growth in traditional debt or equity financing. One example
of this, from 2015, is the planned release by Toyota of 50 million new shares, which must be held for five
years and cannot be publicly traded, with the finance being used to develop, amongst other things, fuel
cell manufacturing facilities. The sale of these special Model AA shares is expected to raise $4.2 billion.
CHART 5.7: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY SUB-SECTOR, 2010 – 2015 (F)
When we unpack all the data by sub-sector we can see growth across all the different areas except
portable. The drop in shipments in portable was due to the key companies transitioning between models.
As this is planned to be completed by the end of this year, 2015, we are forecasting strong growth in sales
in 2015, specifically for the myFC Jaq, and the second generation Intelligent Energy UPP.
Sales of fuel cell forklifts are still growing, but as the number of manufacturers in this area is still very
limited and in reality totally dominated by Plug Power, any growth is realistically a forecast of growth from
Plug Power.
As the chart graphically illustrates, the residential CHP sector continues to dominate, with over 98% of
shipments taking place in Asia. Within the sector PEM fuel cells are still the leading technology but SOFC is
starting to take an increasing share, even after the collapse of Ceramic Fuel Cells. However, we are
forecasting that it will not be until the mid 2020s that SOFC achieves a market share of more than 20%.
The breakout market in 2014 was trains. Whether for light duty rail, commuter trains, or trams, the level
of interest and activity in this area rocketed. Nevertheless, it will be some time before this sub-sector can
warrant being broken out of the “Forklifts and Others” category.

4th
34 | P a g e
CHART 5.8: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BY MWS, BROKEN OUT BY SUB-SECTOR, 2010 –
2015
(F)
If we look at the sub-sectors broken out by MWs, what clearly jumps out straight away is the number of
MWs from the projected deployment of fuel cell cars in 2015. For reference this represents fewer than
4,000 fuel cell cars shipped in this year.
The combined heat and power market is going through an interesting phase. First, though, it should be
made clear that combined heat and power fuel cells are systems which produce heat as an output which is
used in external systems, and not reused within the fuel cell (for this report Bloom Energy’s Bloom Boxes
are not classified as a CHP system).
What is interesting about this market is that CHP is increasingly attractive for governments which are
seeking to increase efficiency in their countries’ overall energy systems. However, deployment into the
market continues to be a struggle.
For example, in the US, ICF International has conducted a study which indicates that the technical
potential for industrial CHP is 140 GW8
, and when this is combined with the 2012 Executive Order, “CHP, A
Clean Energy Solution”, which requires that there is a "coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to
achieve a national goal of deploying 40 GWs of new, cost effective, industrial CHP in the United States by
the end of 2020", yet deployment of CHP was only 708 MWs in 2013 and 2014 combined9
.
8
Hedman, B., "Combined Heat and Power: Market Status and Emerging Drivers". Institute for Industrial
Productivity, 2013, www.iipnetwork.org
9
This numbers includes installs of fuel cell CHP

4th
35 | P a g e
5.2 ELECTROLYTE MIX
The dataset shown in chart 5.9 breaks out the data into three electrolyte types, namely: PEM; SOFC; and
Other, comprising AFC, DMFC, PAFC and MCFC. Microbial fuel cells and flow batteries are not included.
In terms of MWs shipped, which is now the best metric to measure the overall electrolyte split, we can see
that PEM is poised to leap forward in 2015. This is based on the emergence (finally) of the fuel cell light
duty sector. In 2014 both PEM and Other shipped over 80 MWs, whilst SOFC lagged somewhat at just over
40 MWs.
CHART 5.9: GLOBAL FUEL CELL SHIPMENTS, BROKEN OUT BY ELECTROLYTE AND MWS, 2010 –
2015 (F)
Chart 5.10 illustrates the continued fallacy of drawing long term trends based on the past electrolyte mix.
Each year the overall percentage mix changes. This is due to the continued waxing and waning of interest
in some sectors and geographies and the entrance or exit of a number of companies.
CHART 5.10: GLOBAL FUEL CELL ELECTROLYTE SPLIT BY YEAR, 2010 – 2015 (F)

4th
36 | P a g e
5.3 PLATINUM
This first of two new sections of the Fuel Cell Annual Review tackles for the first time in any public report
the actual usage of platinum in the fuel cell sector. Seen by some as the main stumbling block to cost out
in fuel cells, and by others as a future economic growth engine, platinum is the one topic on which
everyone has an opinion!
Platinum, or additionally palladium, is used in all low temperature fuel cells as a catalyst. Platinum is used
as it is the catalyst which disassociates least in the conditions within a fuel cell. Apart from the system
durability benefit, this also means that at the end of the working life of the fuel cell the platinum, if it is
recycled, can be reused. For reference the US Department of Energy (DOE) target for platinum recycling is
98%. Therefore, potentially, for each fuel cell, during its working lifetime, only 2% is lost to the system.
In 2014 the global fuel cell industry posted demand for platinum of 25 thousand ounces10
. This has risen
from under 10 thousand ounces in 2013. This jump in usage was due to the increase in PEM stacks for a
range of applications. 4th
Energy Wave forecasts that in 2015 demand will increase to 34 thousand ounces.
CHART 5.11: GLOBAL PLATINUM USAGE IN FUEL CELLS, 2013 – 2015 (F)
Thrifting is the reduction in amount of platinum in the stack that is needed for the reaction to take place.
It has been the focus of a concentrated research effort since 2005. Primarily driven by US DOE 2015 fuel
cell vehicle targets of 0.15 g Pt / kW, the best in class PEM fuel cells are now approaching this target. Note
that this is a very carefully chosen wording. “Best in class” is very different from “on the road”. As
durability of the stack is very closely correlated with platinum, and the current generation of fuel cells on
the road are mostly concerned with durability, not economics, then currently fuel cells have a loading
significantly higher than the best in class lab based stacks. This is likely to remain so, for vehicles at least,
until the next generation automotive stack is put into vehicles around the 2020 timeframe.
10
Note that platinum demand is normally quoted as thousand ounces. For reference 1 thousand ounce =
0.0283495 (metric) ton

4th
37 | P a g e
CHART 5.12: FUEL CELL PLATINUM THRIFTING OVER TIME, 2005 – 2030 (F)
Source: US DOE and 4th Energy Wave, 2015
Thrifting will clearly continue, as it has in diesel car catalysts, beyond the 2015 target, and taking into
account current research patterns, time to market and focus points, 4th
Energy Wave is forecasting that by
2030 PEM automotive fuel cell stack loadings will be equivalent to today’s (2015) diesel catalyst loadings.
In terms of overall demand, using data produced and published by Johnson Matthey11
, in 2013 the global
platinum industry consumed 8,420 thousand ounces. In comparison, the demand from the fuel cell
industry in 2013, at 9 thousand ounces, was a drop in the ocean.
CHART 5.13: GLOBAL PLATINUM DEMAND BY SECTOR, 1975 - 2013
Source: Johnson Matthey and 4th Energy Wave, 2015
11
http://www.platinum.matthey.com/
US DOE
Automotive
Target
4th
Energy
Wave
Forecast of
Equivalence
with Diesel
Catalyst
Loadings

4th
38 | P a g e
One attempt to put perspective on these numbers is to take the amount of platinum recycled from the
automotive sector12
in 2013 and turn this into the number of fuel cell cars that it would represent at
today’s loadings. Using the data we have, this would represent over 1 million fuel cell cars. In others
words, using our projections, recycled platinum from one year just from the current automotive industry
is enough to supply the growth of the global fuel cell vehicle sector for more than the next 13 years.
Looking forward, taking into account thrifting on the one hand and increased demand for low
temperature fuel cells (including PEM, DMFC, PAFC and AFC) on the other, we are forecasting that by 2025
platinum demand from the entire fuel cell sector will reach 252 thousand ounces.
CHART 5.14: GLOBAL PLATINUM DEMAND FROM THE FUEL CELL SECTOR
The sharp dip in demand in this chart is created by the release of the next generation automotive PEM
stack which is forecast to have significantly lower platinum loadings.
12
Note that since 2005 JM has identified recovery from jewellery and electrical scrap as well as
autocatalyst scrap. Chart 5.13 only shows platinum from the automotive sector in the recovery column.
9
25
34
252
2013 2014 2015
(F)
2016
(F)
2017
(F)
2018
(F)
2019
(F)
2020
(F)
2021
(F)
2022
(F)
2023
(F)
2024
(F)
2025
(F)
'000ounces
Stationary Transport Portable Total

4th
39 | P a g e
5.4 COSTS
The second new section of this report starts to provide an annual, systematic, examination of fuel cell
costs.
We know that as technology improves, and is increasingly mass manufactured, cost are removed through
two processes:
1. Engineering cost out – before designs are locked and components standardised. As system design
becomes increasingly standardised, cost out potential gravitates towards manufacturing;
2. Manufacturing cost out – when a product moves to mass manufacturing.
Together these represent a technology’s cost curve.
Many of the cleantech technologies now have well known learning curves. An often-cited IRENA figure of
22% for the solar PV curve is shown below. This 22% means that for every doubling of production the
price of the solar PV module drops an impressive 22%.
FIGURE 5.1 GLOBAL PV MODULE PRICE AND LEARNING CURVE FOR C-SI AND CDTE MODULES,
1979 - 2015
Source: IRENA, 2012
The question is often raised as to what are the learning curves for fuel cells. This is to some extent the
wrong question, as not only is each electrolyte experiencing a different rate of learning, but some of the
electrolytes are too early in their development path to move into production cost out. For example,
residential scale SOFC systems are still under a strongly individual development regime, and little or no
commonality exists across the different residential SOFC companies. This means that each SOFC developer
will have its own learning curve, and that averaging them out, whilst statistically neat and tidy, would
provide nothing more than a statistical sleight of hand.

4th
40 | P a g e
Using the data we do have we can produce Chart 5.15, which also includes data from IRENA on wind and
solar. The chart starts at 1 MW cumulatively shipped for each electrolyte. Prior to this point costs were
simply silly, and the technology had a lot of re-engineering to undertake.
CHART 5.15: FUEL CELL COST OUT FOR SELECTED ELECTROLYTES, WIND AND SOLAR
Source: IRENA, 2012 and 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
The key takeaways from the chart are:
1. At 50 MWs cumulative installed capacity both PEM and SOFC were at a cheaper price point than solar
and wind were at the same point in their development cycles;
2. SOFC cost out is still “spiky”, potentially implying that engineering, rather than manufacturing, is still
dominating cost out;
3. PEM fuel cells are still expensive but, with the most highly concentrated development focus, will likely
see the fastest cost out going forward.
In the longer term, 4th
Energy Wave forecasts that the costs for both SOFC and PEM fuel cell technologies
will be under $1,500 / kW.
2014

4th
41 | P a g e

4th
42 | P a g e
6.1 SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE REMOTE POWER MARKET
Interest in supplying fuel cells to the remote area power market (RAPs) is growing. This is due to a number
of converging dynamics and demands. One of the biggest challenges facing entrants into the RAPs market
is the actual nature of the opportunity. In the same way that fuel cells is a bucket term for differing
technology types, RAPs covers many diverse sectors. And within these are different demands from the
technology, differing cost points, different champions and gatekeepers.
CHART 6.1: RAPS MARKET SEGMENTATION
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
It is clear from the table above that RAPs covers literally dozens of different sub-markets, and within each
of these is potential for volume demand. The key drivers for change can be summed up as:
 Policy – stationary engine emissions targets are getting stricter;
 Noise – in some environments generators are actually banned during certain time periods due to their
noise;
 Autonomy – this is across the board. Aside from mobile road equipment, such as lighting towers, the
base requirement seems to be for 3 months upwards. Obviously when this is a requirement the
system will need to be able to transmit data in real time back to the user;
 Reliability – this is linked back to autonomy and the need for systems to run for months without
repair.
At present most of the fuel cell companies operating in this space are providing systems with trickle
charge batteries, and are relatively small in terms of wattage. SFC, formerly Smart Fuel Cell, is head and
shoulders above the rest of the market in this area. Chart 7.2 provides a snapshot overview of the power
available, with limited data on shipments.
< 500 Watt
•e.g. Remote Sensing;
•Can be as low as 150 watts;
•Long runtime autonomy
required, in months;
•Main incumbent is solar /
battery configurations and
thermal electric generators;
•Most fuel cell companies
targeting this space;
•Potential large volume
markets, with good margins,
but highly dispersed.
1 - 5kW
•e.g. remote power for cell
sites and village power;
•Very high autonomy
needed. Target of 1 year;
•Main incumbent is diesel
generators;
•Only 2 fuel cell companies
currently developing
product for this power
range;
•Adoption is based on
reliabilityand autonomy
first and cost second.
> 5 kW
•e.g. remote power for
natural gas compressor
stations, mine sites and
enhanced oil recovery;
•Very high autonomy
needed. Target of 1 year;
•Main incumbent is
generators and turbines and
some concentrated solar;
•Increasing issue with
emissions from stationary
engines, forcing companies
to look for alternatives.

4th
43 | P a g e
CHART 6.2: COMPARISON CHART OF FUEL CELL RAPS MARKET COMPANIES
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
At present, in terms of numbers of fuel cells shipped the RAPs market is tiny, but is clearly growing, and in
the 4th
Energy Wave model of adoption it reaches the 20,000 units per annum level by 2020.
CHART 6.3: FORECAST FUEL CELL RAPS MARKET GROWTH
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Notes:
1. 2013 and 2014 data points are actuals. 2015 to 2020 are forecasts.
2. In the model, we use the term “remote monitoring and sensing” to cover demand from the RAPs
market. The model is a steady state model, and assumes no new relevant policy, over and above what is
already in the pipeline, and that companies are able to secure finance to ramp up.

4th
44 | P a g e
To date, fuel cell companies developing, or selling, fuel cell systems and products into the RAPs market
include: Acumentrics, SFC Energy, Protonex13
, New Enerday, IRD, Ballard, Horizon and AMI.
There is also a related growth in distributor companies that are deploying a range of fuel cell products into
the RAPs market. Two of the most successful are UPS Systems (UK), and Sirius Integrator, Inc. (USA).
As is clear from this, and from every other sector the fuel cell industry is targeting, the key is to know your
customer and know your competitor. For the RAPs market the three technologies that can be said to be
the incumbents, and therefor competitors, are:
 Solar / battery hybrid combination
 Thermoelectric generators14
 Diesel / natural gas engines
TABLE 6.1: COMPETITOR TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Solar / Battery Hybrid TEG Diesel / NG Engine
CAPEX Low High Low
OPEX
- North
America
Low Low Low
- Africa Low High High
Maintenance
Schedule
Low Low High
Fuel
Consumption
Low High High
Emissions Low Not good Not good
Reliability Medium High Medium
Durability Low High Medium
Start up Time Good Good Good
Ability to cycle Good Good Good
Ability to scale to
power
requirements
Medium Good – up to a certain
level, then makes no
economic sense
Good
Ability to work in
extreme weather
environments
Poor Good Good
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
It is clear from the table that whilst there is no best option there is also no worst option.
So for any companies looking to target a RAPs market, the key questions to be asked are about:
1. Application - is the product to be used for prime power or a trickle charger battery? This will influence
the size of the system and therefore the sub sectors that could be realistically targeted;
2. Available fuel options – a critical issue in many parts of the world. Be careful to match up fuel
availability with product;
3. Autonomy – be realistic about intervals between maintenance cycles and don’t over-promise;
4. Ability to work in extreme environments - this can push up costs, but if the system meets user
requirements then cost is often a secondary issue;
13
Note that Ballard Power bought Protonex in July, 2015
14
TEGs are not new technology but are still fairly unknown in many commercial applications. In short, as
long as there is heat they produce electricity. Most commercial systems use a fuel, such as propane, to
produce the heat at controllable times.

4th
45 | P a g e
5. Distributors – they often know customers best. Working with a good distributor can increase market
penetration much more quickly than trying to break into a market with a new technology, a new
product and a new company.

4th
46 | P a g e
6.2 SPECIAL FOCUS ON JOBS
Jobs and economic value add are an increasing focus of governments around the world.
This focus, as well as providing a range of support to technologies that give back to society, is increasingly
being put on where, or if, there is economic value add. Where are the niches that can be expanded into
centres of excellence? Where is the labour force going to come from that will build, install and maintain a
new energy infrastructure? What training and education needs to be created to grow the work force?
These are all very valid questions to which the fuel cell and hydrogen sectors have few answers at present.
In some countries this desire to develop economic potential is targeted towards some form of localisation
of manufacture, and is thereby more directly linked to job creation. This trend is very definitely on the
increase, and we at 4th
forecast that in the short term we will start to see stricter tie-ins between local
manufacturing and local subsidy. In other words, if you want the subsidy you will need to be able to prove
a clear causal link to economic value add - and job creation and employment growth will be key.
To be able to judge the employment potential an understanding of the current number of jobs in the fuel
cell industry is crucial.
The headline figure is that using in-house data, at system level, globally, there are between 6,000 and
6,500 people working directly in the fuel cell industry. This includes part time staff, but does not include
indirect employees such as those in jobs created through installation. When we expand this to include the
supply chain the number more than doubles.
While it is impossible to precisely delineate the different areas in which a person works we can make
some assumptions, based on sales and order backlog, regarding the current core focus of a company’s
manufacturing time. For system and stack companies only, and without taking account of the supply
chain, we can impute that, during 2014, 72% of people employed in the fuel cell industry were working on
tasks related to stationary fuel cells. The portable sector only accounted for 3%. The remaining 25% were
in the transport sector, and within this 20% were working on fuel cells in the automotive industry.
CHART 6.3: DIRECT JOBS AT FUEL CELL SYSTEM LEVEL, GLOBAL: 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015

4th
47 | P a g e
At 4th
we want to make clear that our methodology for creating the above split is far from bullet proof, but
an approximate number is much better than no number at all.
Again at only system and stack level, if we look at the current geographical split it is interesting to note the
skewing towards North America. This is due to the fact that the major companies, such as Bloom Energy,
FuelCell Energy, Hydrogenics and Ballard are all North American based.
CHART 6.4: GEOGRAPHICAL SPLIT OF DIRECT JOBS AT SYSTEM LEVEL, GLOBAL: 2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Probably contentiously, this particular split is the one which we forecast to shift the most over the next
decade, and not because of China - in fact we are not forecasting any global concentration of
manufacturing in China.
The fuel cell and hydrogen manufacturing sectors are likely to be globally distributed with a number of
nodal centres of excellence in research and associated early stage manufacturing. Fuel cell and
electrolyser stack production lines are somewhat cookie cutter and can be deployed where product
demand is highest. This linkage of manufacturing to demand is what will change the geographical split of
employment the most. In terms of government policy the clear objective should be to create a local
environment that is conducive to increasing demand. The other high value area is the forecast nodal
centres of excellence. An in-depth gap analysis of the weaknesses that currently exist in both industries,
and linking these to existing or transferable skills in, say, the oil and gas industry, should help to identify
locations in which these centres can be created for maximum benefit. This of course assumes
governments would work together and not undertake what would be in essence a land grab for jobs.
Within the 4th
Energy Wave dataset of fuel cell companies, only 21 companies employ over 100 staff. Also
the top 10 fuel cell system companies, in terms of deployment and revenue, account for over 50% of total
staff employed.

4th
48 | P a g e
COMPARISON WITH CLEANTECH JOBS
It is worth comparing fuel cell employment numbers with other clean energy sectors. In May 2015 IRENA
published its second “Renewable Energy and Jobs – Annual Review”15
. The report goes into the number of
direct and indirect jobs supported by renewable energy. The technologies covered in the report are solar
PV, liquid biofuels, wind power, biomass, solar heating / cooling, biogas, small hydropower, geothermal
and concentrated solar power.
FIGURE 6.1: IRENA ESTIMATED JOBS IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY
Source: IRENA, 2015
Here the split by geography is very much skewed in favour of Asia, with China being the clear leader.
FIGURE 6.2: RENEWABLE ENERGY JOBS BY COUNTRY (THOUSANDS)
Source: IRENA, 2015
15
Report can be downloaded from:
http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=585

4th
49 | P a g e
So if we combine the IRENA data with the 4th
Energy Wave data we can see the following.
CHART 6.5: GLOBAL ESTIMATED JOBS IN THE CLEAN ENERGY SECTOR, THOUSANDS, 2014
Source: IRENA, 2015 and 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
In terms of jobs the fuel cell industry is only growing very slowly and 4th
Energy Wave forecasts that in the
supply chain there will be a contraction of jobs as systems become more efficient and a smaller number of
companies become the standard component suppliers.
Post 2018 the number of jobs at the system level will increase but it is unlikely to reach even the current
wind power level for decades.
Returning to the question of a government requirement, or desire, to provide economic value add to its
particular patch, this will see significant fall out as the fuel cell industry is not likely to be able to provide
every nation with the level of jobs needed. This will require careful expectation management from the
industry, which (to be brutally honest) is something that it has been woefully bad at doing to date.
2014 JOBS SUMMARY:
 6,000 – 6,500 working direct in the fuel cell industry, at stack and system level, globally;
 > 12,000 working direct in the fuel cell industry across the supply chain, globally;
 At present the majority of jobs at stack and system level are concentrated in North America;
 Globally the top 10 fuel cell companies employ > 50% of staff at system level;
 The fuel cell industry currently contributes to less than 1% of cleantech jobs globally.

4th
50 | P a g e
7. DATA TABLES
The following data tables present data from Fuel Cell Today16
for 2009 to 2012 combined with primary
data gathered by 4th
Energy Wave for the 2013 and 2014 fuel cell markets.
Table 7.1: Global Fuel Cell Shipments by Sector: 2009 - 2014
Shipments Units 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Portable '000s 5.7 6.8 6.9 18.9 26.0 44.1
Stationary '000s 6.7 8.3 16.1 24.1 38.7 56.5
Transport '000s 2 2.6 1.6 2.7 2.8 4.3
Total '000s 14.4 17.7 24.6 45.7 67.5 104.9
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Table 7.2: Global Fuel Cell Shipments by Region of Manufacture: 2009 – 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Europe '000s 4.4 4.8 3.9 9.7 8.7 24.6
N America '000s 3.2 3.3 3.3 6.8 2.4 4.2
Asia '000s 6.7 9.5 17 28 55.6 75.6
RoW '000s 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.4
Total '000s 14.4 17.7 24.6 45.7 67.5 104.9
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Table 7.3: Global Fuel Cell Shipments by Electrolyte Type: 2009 – 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
PEM '000s 8.5 10.9 20.4 40.4 63.8 77.3
SOFC '000s 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.3 0.7 0.9
Other '000s 5.8 6.7 3.6 3 2.9 26.6
Total '000s 14.4 17.7 24.6 45.7 67.5 104.9
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Table 7.4: MWs Fuel Cell Shipped by Sector: 2009 - 2014
MWs Units 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Portable MWs 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.9
Stationary MWs 35.4 35 81.4 124.9 168.4 180.2
Transport MWs 49.6 55.8 27.6 41.3 11.9 40.7
Total MWs 86.5 91.2 109.4 166.7 180.5 221.8
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
16
Fuel Cell Today, Johnson Matthey, “The Fuel Cell Industry Review, 2013”

4th
51 | P a g e
Table 7.5: MWs Fuel Cell Shipped by Region of Manufacture: 2009 - 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Europe MWs 2.9 5.8 9.4 17.3 2.8 3.3
N America MWs 37.6 42.5 59.6 61.5 117.8 107.9
Asia MWs 45.3 42.5 39.6 86.1 56.1 110.6
RoW MWs 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.8 3.8 0.0
Total MWs 86.5 91.2 109.4 166.7 180.5 221.8
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015
Table 7.6: MWs Fuel Cell Shipped by Electrolyte Type: 2009 - 2014
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
PEM MWs 60 67.7 49.2 68.3 43.2 84.5
SOFC MWs 1.1 6.7 10.6 26.9 48.5 56.3
Other MWs 25.4 16.8 49.6 71.5 88.7 80.7
Total MWs 86.5 91.2 109.4 166.7 180.5 221.8
© 4th
Energy Wave, 2015

4th
52 | P a g e
8. COMPANY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND PROFILES
8.1 COMPANY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
As industries go the fuel cell and hydrogen sectors have a remarkably low number of listed companies. If
we split these into Tier 1 (commercial product, growth phase), and Tier 2 (smaller and still in non, or
limited, commercial phase), we can list 15 companies17
If we look at the performances of the companies a few key points become apparent:
 We can see that most of the companies are still some way off being profitable. Although an
increasing number are profitable per unit sold, and even EBITA profitable, overall only Hydrogenics is
anywhere near achieving full profitable status;
 Worryingly, mFC, Intelligent Energy, FuelCell Energy, Ballard, Plug Power, SFC Energy, AFC Energy,
Neah Power, ITM Power, McPhy, and Powercell all posted higher losses in 2014. And only a small
subset of these, namely Ballard, Plug Power, SFC Energy, Hydrogenics, ITM Power, and McPhy posted
an increase in revenue;
 AFC Energy, Neah Power and Powercell may have had a string of big press releases in the last few
months, but financially none of these companies is on safe ground. Neah Power, especially, is clearly
at the top of the critical list. Revenue and head count are down – a lot – whilst losses mount18
;
 Looking at their financials, ITM Power clearly needed the investment from JCB.
CHART 8.1: FINANCIALS FROM LISTED FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN COMPANIES
Source: Company Annual Reports
* indicates revenue / loss just from the fuel cell or hydrogen part of the business, and not the overall business.
17 Heliocentris (Germany) has not been included in this list simply as its reporting calendar is somewhat different. The
data will be updated when its annual report comes out and will be published in the Review.
18 I suspect what will happen with Neah is that it will put its fuel cell development plans on hold and focus on battery
products for the forthcoming couple of years.

4th
53 | P a g e
With a decrease in revenue being posted by so many companies it could be argued that this is endemic to
the sector, with a related decrease in interest in distributed generation technologies and hydrogen. But
we know that this is not the case. It is also easy to blame the decrease in the oil price for the falling
revenue, but although there may be some correlation, it will not be the major reason. The reality is that
many companies are going through significant growth pains. SFC, for example, is often a poster child for
the sector, but has been going through a two year restructuring, and now sees fuel cells representing only
20% of the company’s overall revenue. Ballard with its new CEO is spinning into a new, improved version
and is spending in relation to this. It is something of a mystery as to why FuelCell Energy posted falling
revenue. Looking at the data on shipments and orders, by location, it is clear that sales from the US have
taken a hit. As this is its major market outside of South Korea this could represent its dip in revenue. It is
likely in the 2015 financial review that we will see a larger outlay in marketing, or some other cost bucket,
to increase the sales volume in the US.
Turning to expenses: one of the big expenses for most companies is R&D costs. Although this is often
somewhat offset by government grants the amount of money ploughed into R&D can give an indication of
the focus of the company.
Not all companies list R&D expenses in their audited statements so the number of companies that we can
analyse shrinks somewhat. Whilst Plug, SFC and Ballard have one-off costs19
, represented as a loss, in their
financial statements the chart below clearly shows that the losses posted by Plug Power and Intelligent
Energy are not strongly correlated with R&D costs. Once again though Hydrogenics appears to be the
healthiest, in terms of finances. Its losses are low, at $4.5 million in 2014, and of this $3.3 million is
accounted for by R&D cost.
CHART 8.2: TOTAL LOSS AND R&D EXPENSES FROM SELECTED LISTED FUEL CELL AND
HYDROGEN COMPANIES
19 For both Plug and SFC this is company purchase costs, whilst for Ballard this one-off cost is from the dissolving of
the deal with the Chinese company Azure.

4th
54 | P a g e
* indicates revenue / loss just from the fuel cell or hydrogen part of the business, and not the overall business
In terms of head count it is interesting to note that between them these companies represent an increase
in employees of 196 full time heads. Although this number is low the prevailing economic conditions need
to be taken into account, as well as the overall percentage increase that this represents. One metric that
can be useful to look at is the revenue per employee, as this metric says something about the
sustainability of the company. Assuming each head costs a company, on average, $150k per year we need
to see an average income per head to be above this to be somewhat confident of growth.
What is interesting is that over the past year two companies, Plug and SFC, have jumped over the $150k
benchmark, joining FuelCell Energy, Ballard and Hydrogenics. Intelligent Energy and myFC have taken a
step back in this respect, whilst Neah has just gone off a cliff. The other standout company, using this
metric, is McPhy. From this it is clear that this small French company, of only 80 staff, should be on any
“must watch” list.
CHART 8.3: REVENUE PER HEAD OF STAFF, 2014
* indicates revenue / loss just from the fuel cell or hydrogen part of the business, and not the overall business
If we start to add in the performance of non listed fuel cell and hydrogen system integrator companies we
can see the importance of only a handful of companies.

4th
55 | P a g e
CHART 8.4: 2014 MARKET SHARE, BY REVENUE, OF KEY LISTED AND NON LISTED COMPANIES,
2014
Source: 4th
Energy Wave, 2015

4th
56 | P a g e
8.2 COMPANY PROFILES
The 10 companies in this year’s Company Profile are those considered by 4th
Energy Wave to have the
potential to catapult the fuel cell and hydrogen sectors into profitability and mass market acceptability20
.
These companies, all of which are working at either stack or system level, are listed in alphabetical order:
1. Bloom Energy (Stationary, USA)
2. eZelleron (Portable, Germany)
3. Fuji Electric (Stationary, Japan)
4. GE (Stationary, USA)
5. Hydrogenics (Stationary / Transport / Hydrogen, Canada)
6. Intelligent Energy (Portable / Stationary / Transport, UK)
7. ITM Power (Hydrogen, UK)
8. myFC (Portable, Sweden)
9. NEL (Hydrogen, Sweden)
10. Riversimple (Transport, UK)
This is clearly not an exhaustive list of the global fuel cell sector and hydrogen sectors, which now
encompass over 500 companies globally.
4th
Energy Wave categorises companies in the fuel cell and hydrogen sectors as:
 Pure play fuel cell / hydrogen system and / or stack developer, privately held;Pure play fuel cell /
hydrogen system and / or stack developer, publicly listed;Corporate company with fuel cell /
hydrogen system and / or stack development group or business unit, privately held;Corporate
company with fuel cell / hydrogen system and / or stack development group or business unit,
publicly held;
 Integrator company with development interest in product optimisation, privately held;
 Integrator company with development interest in product optimisation, publicly listed;
 Distributor company with no separate development interest.
From the list only 2 companies are classed as corporate company with fuel cell system and / or stack
development group or business unit, a further 3 are pure play fuel cell system and / or stack developer,
privately held, with the remainder being pure play fuel cell system and / or stack developer, publicly listed.
Each company in the list has as its core a focus on product, not R&D for the sake of R&D, and has a
commercial or very close to commercial product. The mix and type of companies in the list is significant. If
the top 10 were all small, pure play companies, then we would suggest that this was a sign of the overall
unsustainability of the fuel cell and hydrogen industries. It is important to have large incumbents in the
mix, as they have a track record of stripping out costs and creating consumer acceptability and
profitability. And while history shows that over time new technologies will be developed by new
companies which will then go on to disrupt the incumbents, without the currently established companies
both fuel cells and hydrogen would likely remain as micro niches in the overall energy and transport
sectors.
The company profiles on the following pages provide a snapshot of our in-house analysis of each of the
companies.
20
No member of the team at 4th
Energy Wave holds any financial position at any of the companies listed in
this report.

4th
57 | P a g e
Company Name: BLOOM ENERGY
Country of HQ: USA
Place on Supply Chain: SOFC System Supplier
Company Type: Pure play fuel cell system and stack developer, privately held
Commercial: Yes
Bloom Energy remains the most quoted of all fuel cell companies and has played a very strong publicity
game since coming out of the closet in 2010. The company has so far raised over $1.2 billion in capital,
with the last investment round including $130 million in convertible notes. With still no date given for an
IPO the company remains somewhat closed to view in terms of costs and other core metrics.
Strengths:
 Very strong customer log book;
 A number of finance vehicles available,
allowing customer flexibility;
 Patient investors;
 Strong IP base, with over 120 active patents;
 Strong internal leadership.
Weaknesses:
 No public proven financials, which leads to a
lot of rumour and misinformation in the
market place;
 Costs are high, keeping deployment limited to
very high value markets, such as datacentres.
Opportunities:
 Currently the company is only deploying in
USA and Japan, so it is has a lot of potential
room for growth;
 Cost out is clear but there is still large scope
to further reduce costs.
Threats:
 Concern over lack of IPO date starting to
overshadow company successes;
 Certain groups in the US are very good at
putting out negative information on the
company. So far this has not caused much
blow back but this needs continued careful
management;
 Supply chain, as with other companies, is
critical and as Bloom sole source a number of
components this could be seen as a threat.
Company Name: EZELLERON
Country of HQ: Germany
Place on Supply Chain: SOFC System Supplier
Company Type: Pure play fuel cell system developer, privately held
Commercial: 2016
eZelleron is coming out of the shadows at a very high speed - from R&D firm to crowd sourced darling in
the space of a year. The Germany based micro-company is developing a portable fuel cell power pack, the
Kraftwerk (power plant in German).
Strengths:
 Over 15,000 Kraftwerks have been pre-
ordered and paid for, from over 92 countries;
 This order book has proved to potential
investors that eZelleron has a product that is
saleable;
 Cutting edge micro tubular SOFC technology;
Weaknesses:
 Still some time to market launch;
 No history of scaling up innovative product
from niche to mass market;
 Go-to-market team is building but not
complete. Also likely that company will need
to scale up in the near future so will need to
ensure a flow of competent staff is available.

4th
58 | P a g e
 The system uses readily available LPG, which
can also be made from renewables.
Opportunities:
 As the market for micro fuel cells expands
then the potential opportunities for the
eZelleron technology also expands;
 Open to new development partners, with the
attendant opportunities that they could bring.
Threats:
 eZelleron now has stellar expectations placed
on it by its investors and their backers. It will
need to deliver, or else it faces an uncertain
future;
 eZelleron is likely facing many, many
opportunities, from new markets, to
investors, to products. As much as these are
opportunities in the medium term, the
company needs to focus on delivering what
has already been promised to the market, and
not lose focus;
 the portable power market is becoming
increasingly competitive, with myFC and
Intelligent Energy offering products that
challenge the Kraftwerk.
Company Name: FUJI ELECTRIC
Country of HQ: Japan
Place on Supply Chain: PAFC System Supplier
Company Type: Corporate company with fuel cell system development group
and business unit, publicly held
Commercial: Yes
Fuji Electric has been supplying PAFC fuel cells to the market for some time. The difference now is that it is
selling in Germany, through N2telligence, and has won a very significant order from South Africa.
Strengths:
 Strong engineering development team;
 Strong support from parent company;
 Long development and deployment history -
allows plenty of public case studies;
 Locked down design on current system.
Weaknesses:
 Still needs to focus on cost out of the system
(according to a 2013 press release the current
system price is $6,000 - $6,300 / kW21
);
 PAFC uses significant quantities of platinum -
thrifting in PAFC systems needs focus;
 The company needs to be much better at
marketing the availability of the system;
 Durability needs to be increased.
Opportunities:
 The growth in demand for stationary fuel cells
for datacentres, distributed generation, and
general resilience in buildings will correspond
to growth in demand for the product.
Threats:
 Unless Fuji Electric steps up its presence in
the market in terms of marketing and making
information available it could risk not getting
the uptake it needs to meet corporate
targets.
21
Depending on exchange rate

4th
59 | P a g e
Company Name: GE
Country of HQ: USA
Place on Supply Chain: SOFC System and Stack Developer
Company Type: Corporate company with fuel cell system development group
and business unit, publicly held
Commercial: 2017
GE has come back into the fuel cell market with a bang. Since announcing its return the company has set
up its own fuel cell start-up, built an initial prototyping facility, built up a core development team and
decided on initial system design.
Strengths:
 System under design is a hybrid SOFC and
Jenbacher gas engine, with a very high
combined efficiency;
 System size is ideal for distributed generation
applications;
 GE has a global reputation for excellence so
the system will be assumed to be top drawer;
Weaknesses:
 Still some time to market launch;
 System design means emissions will be low,
but not as low as if the system were using a
fuel cell only;
 No public information yet on price, or
financing options.
Opportunities:
 Any system from GE will be assumed to be
robust and cost competitive;
 The distributed generation market, globally,
is growing at double digits per annum.
Threats:
 System not yet commercial. Whilst the first
demo unit will be out in 2015 (and has already
been bought), the company is facing a shifting
technology and market landscape as it moves
to commercialisation;
 System design is currently for natural gas only.
In Europe the focus is moving on from the
natural gas age.
Company Name: HYDROGENICS
Country of HQ: Canada
Place on Supply Chain: PEM Fuel Cell Stack and System Developer, PEM Electrolyser
Stack and System Developer
Company Type: Pure play fuel cell system and stack developer, publicly listed.
Commercial: Yes
Hydrogenics can be called one of the stalwarts of the fuel cell and hydrogen industries, with growing
deployments in both sectors. 2014 saw the creation of a South Korea JV with Kolon, “Kolon Hydrogenics”,
to provide large scale PEM fuel cells to the market, and saw the unveiling of a 1 MW PEM electrolyser.
Strengths:
 Growing multi MW order book for both fuel
cells and electrolysers;
 Flexible growth strategy;
 One of the leading companies in the emerging
energy storage market ;
 Strong suite of JVs and distributor agreements
in place;
Weaknesses:
 Potentially targeting too many markets –
stationary fuel cells, trucking, trains, UPS,
hydrogen refuelling stations and energy
storage – with no clear specialism in any;
 Whilst revenue is growing and EBITA is
getting better, the company is still not
profitable.

4th
60 | P a g e
 Proven manufacturing at scale;
 Very strong management team.
Opportunities:
 The energy storage market is now recognised
as a key market for the future development of
both the renewable energy and fuel cell
industries. Hydrogenics is very well placed to
deploy hundreds of MWs per annum into this
market;
 China!
Threats:
 As with any other company in this space costs
are a bugbear, and a clear continued cost out
programme needs to be maintained;
 2014 saw a supply chain incident, with a dip
in shipments showing up in the revenue
stream. This event highlighted that the supply
chain is still a real issue for stack and system
developers.
Company Name: INTELLIGENT ENERGY
Country of HQ: UK
Place on Supply Chain: PEM Stack and System Developer
Company Type: Pure play fuel cell system and stack developer, publicly listed
Commercial: Yes
Intelligent Energy IPO’ed in 2014, raising £40M ($60M) for expanding manufacturing facilities. The
company continues to grow its portfolio in portable power generation, transport and distributed
generation.
Strengths:
 Cutting edge technology;
 Track record of deployment;
 Strong, revenue generating relationships in
place with a number of automotive OEMs;
Weaknesses:
 As with Hydrogenics, Intelligent Energy is
potentially targeting too many markets;
 Market reputation needs to be guarded and
maintained;
 Costs need to be continually addressed
through increased manufacturing. Current
cost base is not clearly known.
Opportunities:
 Really interesting business model in India,
where IE’s fully owned subsidiary Essential
Energy has contracted the power
management rights to over 26,000 cell
towers. As the power managers of the cell
towers, switching them over to fuel cell
technology at some point in the future will be
substantially easier;
 Open to new development partners, with the
attendant opportunities that they could
bring.
Threats:
 As the company is not yet profitable it is still
underperforming. Losses appear to be
increasing in the short term;
 Will need to prove clear value add of
technology, over and above not just batteries
but also other types of fuel cell in the cell
tower sector.
Company Name: ITM POWER
Country of HQ: UK

4th
61 | P a g e
Place on Supply Chain: PEM Electrolyser Stack and System Developer; Infrastructure
Provider
Company Type: Pure play hydrogen electrolyser system and stack developer,
publicly listed
Commercial: Yes
ITM Power is a small UK company with a large reach. As a company it has developed a range of
electrolyser based systems, including a boxed hydrogen refuelling station. The company has recently
shown off its 1 MW PEM electrolyser, as it continues to develop into the power-to-gas market. At present
the company’s core market is Europe, but it has recently opened a branch in California.
Strengths:
 Strong relationship with JCB, which will
manufacture for the company, helping drive
down costs;
 Strong project pipeline and a number of high
quality reference projects underway or
completed.
Weaknesses:
 As the company is targeting a range of
immature markets it will be at the behest of
market forces it cannot control;
 The company is clearly some way from
profitability and will require long term
investors;
 It will likely need to recruit for a number of
high visibility front line positions as it grows.
As the current labour market is limited this
will need careful management.
Opportunities:
 As the hydrogen refuelling market and energy
storage markets grow ITM Power has the
opportunity to become one of the key players
in these new sectors;
 Open to new partners, with the attendant
opportunities that they could bring.
Threats:
 As with any company where a significant
percentage of the revenue is project based,
ITM Power will require carefully financial
management to prevent shareholders
becoming worried about revenue dips;
 Will need to prove clear value add of
technology, over and above competing
systems in the power-to-gas market.
Company Name: myFC
Country of HQ: Sweden
Place on Supply Chain: PEM Stack and System Developer
Company Type: Pure play fuel cell system and stack developer, publicly listed
Commercial: Yes
myFC is an innovative Swedish firm which has followed a very clear strategy of product launch, followed
by new generation design, followed by new product launch. Instead of waiting till it had developed a
“perfect” product the company has worked its way up to a potentially revolutionary design in 2015. myFC,
which listed on the stock exchange in 2014 to raise expansion capital, is working in the portable fuel cell
market.
Strengths:
 Strong, stable management team;
 Track record of innovative products;
 One of the best marketing approaches in the
global fuel cell industry;
 Very good mainstream media coverage;
Weaknesses:
 It will need to continue to innovate, and
potentially in the medium term look at
integrating fuel cells into personal electronics;
 The company is some way from profitability,
requiring patient, long term investors;

4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015

4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015

Similar to 4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

4th Energy Wave Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Annual Review, 2015